I've voted for the Camel. While the Dr.1 is possibly more famous, due to it's role as the final mount of von Richthofen, the Camel served in larger numbers and had a decisive role to play in the air war on the Western Front. It was also a more structurally sound airframe than Dr.1, which I believe had a habit of losing it's top wing in flight...

I'm not positive but I think the Camel came out before the DR1. Difference of a couple of months at most.

Go with the Camel. Tricky bird to fly, very tricky. But a good bird once you got your hands around it. Also, it never had any problems with structure. Not as clean a designe as the DR1, less advanced, but a bigger engine and wonderful turn to the right.

DR1. Good bird, but always unstable. Slipping and sliding due to that rudder. Not wild about the engine either. Some of them were captured from Neuiports. But, as Voss showed, in the right hands, they were magnificent.

>Thanks Henning! Did he ever vocalise what he considered his "best" mount was, or has popular folklore decided for him?

I'm not a Richthofen expert, but from the list in the abovementioned book, he scored all 19 of his last 21 victories in the Fokker Dr. I, with the two exceptions falling into the time when the Dr. I was grounded.

Hm, let's see - comment on his fight against A.F. Bird (POW), who put up a spirited fight near ground level in his Sopwith Pup:

"The Fokker triplane F1 102/17 was undoubtedly better and more reliable than the English machine."

He is also quoted with comments on the Albatros, showing that he valued turn rate, roll rate, speed and diving ability, while criticizing the Albatros D. III for not being able to climb in a turn, mediocre roll rate and doubtful strength for a 1000 m dive.

From memory, in "The Red Combat Pilot" (obviously written by a hack writer, and published during wartime so that it cannot be expected to contain tactical information) Richthofen also praised the Sopwith Pup for its ability to hold altitude or climb in turns, but apparently considered it not strong enough for dives, asking "What good is a machine that climbs well if it can't dive?"

Richthofen started his career as observer, aspiring to join the bomber units at the Western Front. However, when he had a look at their large "Combat Aircraft" (as the Germans called their bombers), he concluded that these "Flying Fortresses" (his words, in WW1!) were not fit for combat, and became a single-seater pilot instead.

I voted for the Camel too, I know it was hell in a spin and not very fast, but the Fokker Tri plane, a concept tried and dropped by Sopwitch had way too much leading edge to be fast, three wings seemed to be development going back wards .....that said, in the Richthofen film it seems he thought the Tri plane was pure sex,,,,if this is indeed true maybe thats why he flew it.....and come to grief in it too?
Talk about a fatal attraction!

I have to go with the Camel. The DR 1 was too slow as well as being poor at altitude, which together with a number of structural failures didn't do it any favours.

It certainly had its fans due to its exceptional maneuverablity and its worth remembering that only just over 300 were built. This compares to about 4,300 Albatros III and V fighters. Had it been as good as its reputation would suggest, then my guess is that more would have been built.

Staff MemberModerator

Between these two aircraft I would go with the Camel as well, however you give me a Fokker D.VII and I will make shreds of that camel. D.VII can be debated as the best fighter of the war, fortunately for the allies did not come out until 1918.

Staff MemberModerator

I choose the Dr I. In an age when speed and dive/climb was not the forte of many crates, the Dr I. had the manuevrabilty to dogfight. I'm no expert and its purely a gut feeling, but I was impressed with what Voss did and that kind of plane I would want to have.